Afghanistan and the duty of our representatives

The alternative view is that the member, in the exercise of his or her personal duty, decides that the best interests of their constituents and the nation as a whole are served by following the party policy that they have contributed to developing and were elected to fulfill. For most “bread and butter” issues, this course is defensible. But the distinction once again, though subtle, is crucial. The member reserves the right to decide ultimately what issues fall into this category, not the party. Such a member is exercising power not delegating or abrogating it.

While both political parties exert considerable pressure on their members to toe the party line, both recognise extreme cases where a member’s conscience simply won’t allow them to do so, usually when being asked to vote contrary to a deeply held religious conviction that was held prior to their election. In other cases, the Liberal/National Parties will also tolerate a member crossing the floor from time to time on policy issues for other than “conscience” reasons, the case of Malcolm Turnbull and others on the climate change Bill being a clear example. Generally, the Labor Party frowns on any such exercise of independent judgment by its party members.

So what about the free debate on the war in Afghanistan still in progress? Well, it is clear that the four independents decided for themselves and would have voted accordingly. Of the party members, Anna Burke(Lab), Kelvin Thomson(Lab), Jill Hall(Lab) and Mal Washer(Lib) have courageously exercised their own independent judgment contrary to their party’s policy. All other speakers so far have followed the party line. While some people may question the integrity of some of these members, they were at least prepared to nail their colours to the mast and are entitled to be judged accordingly. The test for their integrity would be whether they would have held to their stated views had their leadership decided at the last moment on an early withdrawal.

But what are we to make of those members who remain silent and are not being required to vote? Because their silence will be interpreted differently by different people - either as tacit assent or refusal to actively support - it is incumbent on them to show clearly where they stand. Their failure to indicate whether they support our continuing involvement or not is a clear case of abrogation of responsibility - the result perhaps of self interest, indifference or cowardice.

If the support for our continuing involvement in the war in Afghanistan is so overwhelming, as both major parties assert, then there should have been a vote on a motion to that effect. And members should have been allowed either a “conscience” vote or, as I have previously advocated, a free vote based on a principled evaluation of the arguments for and against.

For example, in evaluating “the alliance” argument, a conflict needs to be resolved between our national interests and our communal values that prohibit the sacrifice of human life solely to please our friends for future advantage. In deciding whether to stand against their party policy on such an issue, a similar conflict arises for individual members between their career interests and their personal duty to decide such issues for themselves on behalf of their electorate.

Moral problems like these can only be resolved by individual acts of moral courage. You cannot delegate your conscience. Such moral issues need to be confronted by reference to the values we profess to live by, not by the interests we and others want to advance.

In cases where these issues arise, our representatives in Parliament need to be reminded of their duty, as enunciated by Burke, to exercise their own judgment and conscience. For this is precisely the trust that we place in them. But the question is: are they up to it?